Since the most recent thread on the matter is in GQ, I felt that FWIW rather than bump that I’ll make one for this event specifically in case anyone has interest in the results or feels like inserting opinion.
But first, some Recapitulating - bear with me, for the benefit of those who may be new:
Currently PR is a US Territory with a form of limited Home Rule styled “The Commonwealth” that has a government very similar to a state but is subordinate to Congress’ authority; has birthright citizenship but no presidential vote and no vote in the floor of Congress, and though exempt from Federal Income Tax is heavily taxed in other modes and receives only limited, capped federal funding. Years of fiscal mismanagement has led the Congress to create as of last year an Oversight Board that is in the process of restructuring, essentially the Commonwealth is in bankruptcy court by another name.
Nobody really likes things as they are, and pro/anti-statehood is the local political parties’ alignment (thus preventing a true alignment of parties on gorvernance policy lines) so every so often there is a locally called vote to see if there’s any movement in any direction.
(That is important to point out: The US Congress has NOT, EVER put up to the voters in Puerto Rico a multichoice or Y/N vote on statehood/independence/reformed commonwealth with their commitment to honor it. The ONLY Congress-sanctioned votes in PR ever were in the early 50s as a Y/N to move from straight colonial rule to the current constitution.)
So in 2012 there was the latest one, and it was desgined as a two-parter:
First Part: Keep the statu quo, yes or no?
NO won with 54%
Second Part: If there were to be a change, what would you choose?
Of those who marked a choice, the result was:
(A) Statehood = 61%
(B) Outright Independence = 5%
(C) Free/Sovereign Association = 33% (where the entity is UN recognized as sovereign but an agreement is made to have some functions e.g. defense, posts, monetary carried out by the partner country)
HOWEVER: though there were half a million more votes in the 2d question than voted “NO” on the first, there were **also **over 470,000 ballots that went blank in the second question, and it was NOT tabulated how many of the 2nd question answerers had answered what in the first! This has led to questioning what weight if any should that vote have (is it really 61% or is it really 44% if you count blanks as a protest?).
On top of it as usual the major local party that favors the statu quo raised bloody hell that they were not allowed to define it on their terms, and that a “fair” election should mean that it should be called “The Commonwealth” on the ballot so they can campaign for it without in any way implying there’s anything wrong with it.
Having promised to do something about the issue in their first term and failed to deliver, the Obama Admin signed a bill in the 113th Congress in which the carrot of federal funds was dangled subject to the next ballot containing choices and definitions worded so as to be compatible with the US Constitution, laws and policies, as vetted by DoJ.
Political adversaries say Obama did not act in his first term because the then pro-statehood Puerto Rico Governor was a neocon Republican darling of the stateside GOP Hispanic outreach. More likely he just had other things like the economic meltdown, ACA, killing BinLaden and the Tea Party to occupy his attention. Then in 2012 the island administration got replaced with an ANTI-statehood party, who did not lift a finger to take on the offer.
In 2016 SCOTUS had a couple of cases in which they ruled that “the Commonwealth” has no sovereignty of its own, its powers are purely devolved by Congress and what is given can be taken away.
So this year a pro-statehood majority is again in power, and decided to take on the offer and that in view of those rulings, the alternative of “keep statu quo” was mooted, and set up for today a vote that originally was to be: Statehood vs. Separate Sovereignty (as either Independence or Free Association) If the latter choice prevailed, then a runoff in October as ot the form.
Then they sent it to be vetted by DoJ. And they ran into a wee bit of an issue. Let me quote myself…
DoJ’s reasoning on (1) being apparently that the statu quo IS constitutional and legal and the court ruling did not change that – it may suck and be a subjugated condition but the Constitution and Laws do allow it to exist, it’s true.
The pro-statu-quo-ers position is that if they do not get to campaign on promoting their vision for enhancing and improving it, it’s a trick to create a fake majority.
Now up to see what happens today. Heading out to vote, will probably be quite a bit later than I get back to this.